COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE REPLY
2
Discussion Reply Summary
This week’s discussion reply on competitive scope, approach and decision models examines the discussion post by Mr. Mark Gamber. Mr. Gamber using the texts from this course as reference asserts that firms must choose how to create their competitive advantage and discussed ways of doing that as well as requisite knowledge of their competitors that a firm would need. The discussion transitions to how to decide on the competitive approach to be used, and why specifically a competitive approach is needed. While the author did not specifically endorse a specific competitive approach, Mr. Gamber provided an overview of many of the existing approaches used in organizations today. The discussion then moved to competitive scope, here the author provided that competitive scope is a required tool to enable a competitive advantage for organizations. The last section of the discussion focused on decision models where
the Mr. Gamber examined the prisoner’s dilemma model as a decision-making tool.
In identifying competitive approaches there are several that an organization can undertake. This reply seeks to only add to the discussion generated by Mr. Gamber, especially since this week’s discussion did not seek to give specific answers on the subject, but to merely explore the relevant literature. To that end, while looking at the many competitive approaches, it may be useful to look at the instrumental stakeholder theory. The performance repercussions of highly ethical interactions with stakeholders, defined by prominent levels of trust, collaboration, and information sharing, are considered by instrumental stakeholder theory (Jones et al., 2018). This competitive approach is not among the dominant theories, but as Christians we are all called
as leaders to present not only fiscal leadership, but ethical leadership as well. The fact that it also has a performance and competitive upside is an additional benefit. There is a question as to why a theory tied to ethical, and collaborative exchange would not be a dominant competitive
